THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.7839, 8604, 12434 and 12451 of 2023

COMMON ORDER :

The present criminal petitions are filed by the petitioner/A10 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against him in the cases as tabulated hereunder :

2. Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Panuganti, learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.P.Nos.12451 of 2023 and 12434 of 2023, who also represented Sri M.Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.8604 of 2023 and G.Chandra Shekar, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.7839 of 2023, Sri E.Ganesh learned counsel or the respondent No.1 in all the matters and Sri P.Nagesh, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 in Crl.P.Nos.8604 o 2023 and 12451 of

2023.

3. The subject FIRs are registered against the accused alleging that in view of murder of one Amir Ali Khan @ Jali Amir on 07.05.2017, on the next day i.e. 08.05.2017, when the procession of the dead body was going-on, the accused along with others attacked other religion people, damaged their property and beat them.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that except repeating the allegations as against the petitioners, no apparent change can be seen in the entire averments made as against the petitioners by the respective complaints in all the four FIRs. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that one more crime in FIR No.307 of 2017 on the file of the Banjara Hills Police Station has been registered for the same set of allegations against the accused herein and others for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 153A, 295A, 307, 427, 452 read with Section 149 of IPC. Upon filing charge-sheet, the said case is assigned CC No.657 of 2022 on the file of the learned VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Nampally. The present stage of the said case is pending for consideration of charges and is posted to

02.05.2025. Hence, totally five FIRs were registered against the petitioners and others with the same set of allegations by the different complainants in different police stations. In all these crimes the petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.10. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that for no fault on his part the petitioner has been subjected to harassment and mental agony of facing criminal proceedings. The petitioner cannot be subjected to face trial for the same offence in different FIRs which would ultimately result in double jeopardy as against the spirt of Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that except a few of the witnesses, all other witnesses are same in all the above crimes. He further submitted that this is a clear case of abuse of process of law. Stating thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision rendered in Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2013) 6 Supreme Court Cases 348 mainly contending that the respondent police, without application of mind had filed charge- sheets against the petitioner which is not permissible in the law and also the proposition of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Stating thus the learned counsel for the petitioner finally submits that the action of the respondent/police in registering different FIRs basing

on the same cause of action amounts to abuse of process of law, illegal, arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights of the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the present criminal petitions mainly contending that the truth or otherwise of the allegations levelled against the petitioner can only be decided only basing on the evidence adduced during the trial and without subjecting them to such litmus test, deciding the complicity or otherwise of the petitioner at this premature stage does not meet the ends of justice. He further contends that facts of each case are different. He further